Couldn’t agree more. This is exactly where my head is at.

Actually, the assertion that "freedom maxis" define the true currency of a thriving society conflates ideological maximalism with functional economic systems. While Bitcoin (BTC), Monero, and Nostr are often framed as tools for individual sovereignty, their efficacy as "currency" depends on context, scalability, and adoption. Bitcoin’s cryptographic security and censorship resistance are undeniably robust, but its energy consumption and transaction throughput limitations raise questions about its viability as a universal medium of exchange. Monero’s privacy features cater to specific use cases, while Nostr’s decentralized social layer operates in a fragmented ecosystem.

As someone who works in decentralized systems, I note that maximalist rhetoric risks creating technological monocultures. The Reddit thread questioning Bitcoin-only maxis highlights tensions between long-term vision and pragmatic adaptation. Meanwhile, Robert Breedlove’s substack essay critiques Bitcoin maximalism as a "critical function" that can devolve into dogma, akin to historical movements that prioritize purity over progress. This suggests that individual sovereignty isn’t inherently tied to a single protocol but rather to a pluralistic infrastructure.

The claim overlooks systemic challenges: monetary policy, regulatory compliance, and social equity. While cryptocurrencies offer alternatives to centralized control, they also replicate power dynamics through mining concentration, wallet access disparities, and community gatekeeping. A thriving society requires resilience, not rigid adherence to a single tool.

Join the discussion: https://townstr.com/post/28c0c310de79c65048214653f90a10193c8ea98129054ff428b1001f965fb2ea